Critics: 'Isn't She Great' Just Isn't

There is probably a good reason why the producers of "Isn't She Great" didn't place a question mark at the end of the title: critics would have pounced on it. Most of them have responded negatively, anyway.

"No she ain't," writes Rita Kempley in the Washington Post, referring particularly to the performance of Bette Midler. "Midler's Susann takes on the characteristics of a flamboyant Borscht Belt comedienne," she writes.

Elvis Mitchell, making his debut as chief critic for the New York Times, begins his review by extending a brilliant bouquet of metaphors to describe the writings of Jacqueline Susann, the novelist on whom the movie is based and who is portrayed by Bette Middler. He gives the movie itself short shrift, admiring the performances of Middler and Nathan Lane, but concluding: "If you're looking for laughs, give 'Valley of the Dolls' (Susann's most famous novel) another read instead."

Similarly, Joe Morgenstern comments in The Wall Street Journal: "Jacqueline Susann's books were trashy indeed, but, being books, they left a lot to the imagination. "Isn't She Great" is always in your face, and it gets ugly."

Mike Clark in USA Today goes on to predict that the film is doomed at the box office: "Universal Pictures must be already stocking antacids in the studio commissary in anticipation of grosses for this likely non-starter," he writes. "After all, they just bombed at the box office with 'Man on the Moon,' which looks like a "Lawrence of Arabia'-caliber portrait by comparison."

But Lou Lumenick in the New York Post is kinder: "'Isn't She Great' isn't great, but it's an enjoyable if overly discreet and romanticized look at a long-vanished show-business world," he remarks. And Jay Carr in the Boston Globe concludes that the film "will entertain you more than it has any business doing and certainly more than you expect."